SUCCESS FACTORS FOR POST‐DISASTER PERMANENT HOUSING: EXAMPLE OF TURKISH EARTHQUAKES
Abstract
Rebuilding suggestions for earthquake zones have been presented by investigating the social, economic and physical characteristics of the settlements formed after the disasters. In this study, firstly, a literature review was conducted in order to determine long-term satisfaction indicators for permanent housing use in resettlement areas. The data obtained are grouped with hierarchy and affinity diagrams. Qualitative data obtained from the literature were analyzed on nine settlements previously exposed to earthquakes in Turkey. With this research, determining the indicators that affect long-term satisfaction (such as 50 years) will contribute to new research. As a result, it has been determined that the identity, lifestyle and employment opportunities of the victims are not taken into account in housing construction in Turkey in post-earthquake reconstruction. It was observed that most of the disaster housings built in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020 do not carry the traces of the local texture. According to the results of the analysis, a system approach that integrates environmental functions and socio-economic structure should be used while creating new residential areas. This holistic approach will ensure that community-based indicators are also included in the production of permanent housing. This study offers an important contribution in terms of determination of indicators influencing long-term satisfaction in resettlement programs by drawing attention to physical, social, cultural and economic factors in terms of permanent housings built after earthquakes in Turkey.
Keywords
Disaster management, Post-disaster permanent housing, Resettlements, Success factors, Turkish earthquake
References
- Afad. (2018) All Earthquakes in Turkey, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, https://www.afad.gov.tr/, Accessed date: 17 September 2018.
- Arslan H. (2007) Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses. Building and Environment 42: 400-406.
- Aysan FY. (1985) The Erzurum‐Kars earthquake area revisited. Disasters 9: 23-31.
- Aysan Y and Oliver P. (1987) Housing and Culture after Earthquakes: A guide for future policy making on housing in seismic areas, Oxford: Oxford polytechnic.
- Baradan B. (2008) Review of Literature for the concept of post-disaster housing in Turkey. Gazi University Journal of Science 21: 43-49.
- Bilau AA, Witt E and Lill I. (2017) Analysis of measures for managing issues in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Buildings 7: 29.
- Boelhouwer P and van der Heijden H. (2018) The effect of earthquakes on the housing market and the quality of life in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment: 1-10.
- Coburn A, Leslie J and Tabban A. (1984) Reconstruction and resettlement 11 years later: a case study of Bingöl Province, Eastern Turkey. Earthquake relief in less industrialized areas. International symposium. 49-56.
- Coburn A and Spence R. (2002) Earthquake protection, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
- Davidson CH, Johnson C, Lizarralde G, et al. (2007) Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat international 31: 100-115.